Corrections & Clarifications

Scope of this guidance note

This Guidance Note relates to correcting factual errors the ABC has broadcast or published on its own platforms and services, or on platforms and services operated by third parties, whether those errors have been detected as a result of external complaints or independently of complaints processes.

This Guidance Note does not cover the normal updating of content as new information becomes available, or the inclusion of additional information to existing content, except where that new information directly contradicts in a significant material way the information already published.

Key Editorial Standards

Excerpts of key editorial standards relevant to this Guidance Note are set out below. Other editorial standards may also be relevant, depending on the specific circumstances applying in each case.

3 Corrections and clarifications

3.1 Acknowledge and correct or clarify, in an appropriate manner as soon as reasonably practicable:

a significant material errors that are readily apparent or have been demonstrated; or

b information that is likely to significantly and materially mislead.

Mandatory referrals

Any decision to remove content as part of corrective action must be upwardly referred to an appropriately senior editorial manager designated for that task in your Division.

Introduction

The ABC produces such a vast amount of content – much of it live and unscripted – that errors are likely to occur from time to time. The ABC continuously strives for accuracy and has processes to monitor and improve the quality of our content. But if errors occur, part of our commitment to accuracy is to make clear and timely corrections. This approach is part of being both accountable and transparent. As noted in the Principles to the ‘Corrections and clarifications’ standard in section 2 of the Editorial Policies, swift correction can reduce harmful reliance on inaccurate information, especially given that content can be quickly, widely and permanently disseminated. Corrections and clarifications can contribute to maintaining trust and credibility, and achieving fairness and impartiality.

Adequate and appropriate corrective actions can also assist in resolving complaints at an early stage. The ABC Complaints Handling Procedures state that a failure to comply with an editorial standard will not necessarily be regarded as a breach if the ABC takes adequate and appropriate steps to redress the cause of the complaint. The matter will instead be regarded as ‘resolved’.

This is also the case in relation to any alleged breaches of editorial standards that wind up being referred to the industry regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The ABC’s Code of Practice, which is relied upon by ACMA when investigating potential breaches, makes it clear that a failure to comply with the ABC’s accuracy standards will not be taken as a breach if an adequate and appropriate correction or clarification is made within 30 days of a complaint.Explanation of terms

Correction: Refers to a situation where a clear factual error exists that needs to be corrected. For example, if a piece of factual content states that Australia’s Indigenous population is growing at an estimated rate of 20% a year when in fact it is growing at 2% a year, then this error would require correction by way of the provision of accurate information. Correction also refers to errors which arise when significant material facts have been left out of a piece of content and need to be provided to avoid misleading the audience.

Clarification: Refers to a situation where information provided by the ABC may be ambiguous, incomplete, confusing, misleading or open to misinterpretation. In such cases, clarification provides an opportunity for greater accuracy or greater fairness to be achieved. Rather than correcting a clear and simple error, clarification removes the possibility for misunderstanding. For example, a poorly written piece of content like this: ‘The 54-year-old [Rod Blagojevich, a former Governor of Illinois] denied wrongdoing, but prosecutors proved he lied after obtaining FBI wiretaps.’ would be clarified to make it clear that it was prosecutors who obtained the wiretaps, not Mr Blagojevich.

Removal: Refers to a situation where content is so wrong or flawed that a correction or clarification would not adequately address the situation and the content needs to be withdrawn. This would most often be relevant in relation to online content, or to broadcast material which is scheduled to be re-run. Generally, if content is withdrawn an Editor’s Note or on-air statement would indicate this and explain the reasons for it. Remember that removal of content requires referral to an appropriate senior manager (see Mandatory Referrals section). You can read more about the removal of online content in the guidance note Removing Online Content.

Apology: An apology (beyond simply apologising to the audience for an error) is normally provided in addition to a correction or clarification when a factual error by the ABC has caused significant insult, reputational damage or other harm or offence to an individual or group of people. For example, if a damaging claim about an individual is reported and later found to be incorrect, a correction of the error would normally be accompanied by an apology.

In this Guidance Note, the phrase ‘corrective action’ covers any one or more of the above.

When to Take Corrective Action

As in all aspects of Editorial Policy, the ABC’s approach to dealing with errors is based on proportionality, common sense and reasonableness.

We always take corrective action when significant information which is material to a reasonable person’s understanding of the content is not correct, is missing or has not been presented in context

Information is ‘material’ when it is relevant or essential to understanding the issues and ideas being discussed, as distinguished from irrelevant or incidental.

For example, in a piece of factual content about the passage of a controversial piece of legislation through Parliament, the nature of the legislation, its practical effect, the identities of those who voted in favour or against it and the key arguments put forward are all likely to be material. Any errors in that content would require action to correct or clarify. But a minor error in the formal name of the bill itself or the reporting of an incorrect time of day when the bill was passed, where such an error does not in any way change the material facts about the bill or its significance, would not necessarily require action.

It is also important to keep in mind that accuracy mistakes don’t just arise when the facts in a piece of content are wrong. They can just as easily result from leaving out important information.

In cases where context has been left out of a story and the result would be to materially mislead an audience (for example, reporting that someone has been charged with a serious offence but failing to report that they were acquitted), corrective action is needed to disclose the missing context.

While there is no obligation to correct insignificant, non-material errors, consideration should be given to doing so where it is easy to achieve and unlikely to be confusing to an audience. For example, a minor error in the spelling of someone’s name, or the inclusion of incorrect details in a summary of past events, may not be significant or material to the content, but if an opportunity exists to correct such minor errors this should be done.

This is particularly the case in relation to online content which remains accessible on an ongoing basis. Wherever practical, all online errors can and should be corrected, with an appropriate Editor’s Note also added to indicate that a change has been made.

How to take Corrective Action

According to the ABC’s Editorial Policies, corrections and clarifications should occur in an ‘appropriate manner’ and ‘as soon as reasonably practical’.

That means not hiding corrections and clarifications away in times or locations where they won’t be noticed. Corrections and clarifications should be seen, heard or read as far as possible by the audience who saw, heard or read the original error.

The issue of what constitutes an ‘appropriate manner’ most often arises when deciding whether a mistake made on air should be corrected on air, or whether an online correction or clarification, accompanied by an editor’s note, would suffice.

In determining that, keep in mind that our aim is to be open and honest, and to ensure that the corrective action is effective.

The starting assumption is that where errors or omissions are significant and material and have been made on air, they should be corrected on air at the next available opportunity, at a time and on a program/platform where they are most likely to be seen or heard by the same audience. In addition, corrections and clarifications should be added to any relevant online transcript or website connected with the program where the error aired, together with a suitably prominent Editor’s Note explaining where and why the correction or clarification was made.

Similarly, online errors should be corrected or clarified on the page or pages where the error was made.

Whether on air or online, corrective actions should be done in such a way as to make clear the accurate information, while not disguising the fact that an error was originally made.

Exceptions to the rule

Errors which are minor and do not significantly or materially affect a proper understanding of the content or cause damage to anyone’s reputation do not automatically require an on-air correction. One may be provided where it is useful and convenient, but other methods of correction (e.g. online) may instead be appropriate.

In addition, there will be occasions when an on-air correction of more significant material on-air errors or omissions may not be appropriate, such as:

There is no clear or obvious place to make an on-air correction (for example, in the case of one-off, self-contained programming);

So much time has elapsed that an on air correction would no longer be relevant (although the more significant the error, the more likely it will be that an on air correction is required, even after a substantial period of time);

The situation is so complex that it cannot be adequately covered on air, in which case consideration should be given to an on-air pointer to an online correction;

Where the on air correction would have the effect of recreating or adding to the original offence.

Getting the corrective action right

Once you have decided that a correction or clarification is required, take the time to ensure that you get it right.

There is nothing worse than correcting an error inadequately, leading to the need for a second correction or clarification.

This is a particular risk where content is subject to a complaint being investigated by Audience & Consumer Affairs.

In those cases, you should seek advice from the complaints handlers before taking corrective action, to ensure there is agreement on the appropriate action.

Examples of corrections

On-air corrections should contain all relevant information in relation to simple matters which are clear and specific. For example:

‘On last night’s program, we reported that the Government had committed two million dollars over four years to a new direct action carbon reduction program. In fact, the correct figure is two billion dollars.’

In relation to missing context, a clear and specific acknowledgement of what was missing is appropriate. For example:

‘Last night we reported that Mr Smith had resigned as Health Minister after the Opposition revealed he had twice been charged with drink driving offences. We should have included in our story that Mr Smith was ultimately acquitted of both of those charges.’

In relation to more complex matters, it may be appropriate to alert audiences to the fact that an error or errors were made, and to provide details on a program website. For example:

‘Last week in a story about Tasmanian logging, we reported incorrectly on some aspects of the new Intergovernmental Agreement, and in particular about the logging industry’s participation in the process. You can find more details about that on our program website.’

When placing corrective information on ABC websites, keep the following guidelines in mind:

Ensure corrections are easy to find, through the use of appropriate links and pointers.

Include a date on a correction or Editor’s Note, to indicate when the correction was made.

Link a correction to the original content.

If a correction has resulted in original content being edited or removed completely, the Editor’s Note should make that clear. For example:

EDITOR’S NOTE: October 19, 2011: The original broadcast of this story said Medicins Sans Frontieres had withdrawn all foreign staff from Dadaab camp. MSF advises it has withdrawn most foreign staff, but a small number remain providing surgery at Dagahaley Hospital. The transcript has been amended to reflect this.

When making corrections to ABC content on social media platforms, different rules may apply depending on the conventions and the limitations of different platforms. For example, we would not normally delete a ‘tweet’ on Twitter unless there are legal or editorial requirements for us to do so (for example, to avoid possible defamation or ongoing harm and offence). Under normal circumstances, you would update the platform with a new comment including corrections and apologies as appropriate.

Regardless of the particular conventions and limitations of particular third party sites, however, the guiding principles of the ABC’s corrections policy should be kept in mind at all times.

Apologies

The ABC regrets any error it makes, and the commitment to take appropriate corrective action flows from that.

So it is entirely appropriate to apologise for significant material errors. In this case, we are in effect apologising to our audience, who have a right to expect us to be accurate.

However, some errors require a more overt statement of apology to specific individuals or organisations as part of the corrective action.

This will be the case when it can be reasonably judged that the error has resulted in harm to an individual or group of individuals (see ‘Apology’ in Explanation of Terms above).

Determining when such harm has occurred is always a matter for judgement. In particular, issues of possible reputational harm can often carry legal risks for the ABC which need to be managed. Any consideration of such matters should take place in conjunction with ABC Legal, who can advise on the legal implications and, if necessary, assist with appropriate wording.

But in general, if a factual error has resulted in an individual or group being presented in such a way that their standing might be damaged, or significant offence has been caused, or there have been other negative consequences beyond the error itself, then an apology should be considered.

An apology, when required, would normally be made at the same time as the correction or clarification, as part of the same statement.

Status of Guidance Note

This Guidance Note, authorised by the Managing Director, is provided to assist interpretation of the Editorial Policies to which the Guidance Notes relates. The Editorial Policies contain the standards enforceable under the ABC’s internal management processes and under the ABC’s complaints handling procedures.

It is expected that the advice contained in Guidance Notes will normally be followed. In a given situation there may be good reasons to depart from the advice. This is permissible so long as the standards of the Editorial Policies are met. In such situations, the matter should ordinarily be referred upwards. Any mandatory referrals specified in Guidance Notes must be complied with.